Trump charged with four counts over 2020 election

[bignok]

Just now, traveller101 said:

Reading this [deleted] - what comes to mind ........

Cute monkeys

[earlinclaifornia]

16 minutes ago, CharlieKo said:

With so many charges laid against Trump it seems that maybe the prosecution aren't sure any of them will stick. The dems must be so desperate! 

I agree with throwing everything but the kitchen sink against the wall might get a certain result. That has been Trump's mode of operation for some time. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, bignok said:

Cute monkeys

Monkeys reminds me of cages with bars. What else sits in cages with bars? Maybe ask a bunch of insurrectionists who mostly claim Trump told them to go. He promised it would be wild. Sure was.

[CharlieKo]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

https://news.yahoo.com/can-trump-pardon-himself-if-he-wins-in-2024-202946662.html

That doesn't give a definitive answer. He could but there might be problems. But no hard and fast rule that he couldn't pardon himself.

[sirineou]

15 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Great idea. Except the Google results are obviously also filtered, and optimized for each user.

I agree with most of what you wrote above. But the problem is that we all live in our bubbles. We see the bubbles of the other and how can those others be so stupid not to recognize their bubble. Guess what they say about our bubbles... 

True

But that's why we should always challenge what we think we know. 

Getting information from as many as possible. and varied  sources , and look or the inconsistencies, Is IMO the only way possible, at least for me it is. 

    Of course, you watch Fox and the bias is obvious but plenty of times I have seen CNN or MSNBC peoport things that I know for a fact  are not entirely true, and I know that the people reporting them are intelligent enough to know that it is not true. So it leads me to wonder. " if they are wilfully lying to me now . what else are they lying to me about that I have not noticed? 

So as I said the only way possible as far as I know is to have an open critical mind, and challenge what you know to the best of my ability.  

[earlinclaifornia]

38 minutes ago, Tropposurfer said:

I will make a somewhat informed guess ... Based on many hours of widespread reading of both US documents, books on both Trumps past, Putins life, and the Smith indictment we saw today, international varied press reporting, articles, highly credible legal and espionage/spy Masters opinions he is indeed looking and decades of prison, should justice be handed down impartially.

 

There is no precedent remember. Yes Nixon was impeached and pardoned but even his crimes pale in insignificance to those levelled at Trump and those entranced zealot fools around him. 

 

I have a gut feeling that other charges from the uncovering of links to Russians and the Saudi's will soon follow as a result of Smiths exhaustive and expert investigations under the wide ranging independent investigative powers as a 'Special Prosecutor' Smith has.

 

Don't forget when trump sent Parnas, Giuliani, Flynn to Europe to try to find the smoking guns of Biden's relationships and hoped for wrong doings they were told by Italys spy and EU and Italian financial crimes bodies that it was in fact Trump that they needed to be looking at and that they were sure he had committed massive international financial crimes.

These alleged crimes (and enough evidence held by these Euro bodies to say with certainty that Trump was guilty of their accusations) were connected to truly shady characters with direct ties to Putin through dudes in Azerbaijan, Moscow, and other places.

I cannot imagine that this shocking declaration is not being followed by the DOJ. 

 

I have watched a few investigative reports in recent times from a few agencies worldwide e.g. Rachel Maddow USA, 7.30 Report ABC Sydney, ITV England, a few investigative rags like Rolling Stone, and a Washington rag I can't remember the name of.

These have begun to surface and identify truly shocking stuffs. re: state secrets trading, treasonous quid-pro-quo, bribes of staggering proportions and if any of these are to be credibly evaluated as true then they have begun to uncover an alarming and suspect relationship with foreign entities all surrounding Trump and some if not all of his family.

These reports describe and begin to document events going back to before the 2016 declaration of Trumps candidacy for the Presidency.

 

There is the issue of the FBI beginning an investigation into Trump back in 2016'ish from alarm bells being rung across the security apparatus that he was acting EXACTLY like a Russian asset.

Maybe, if this is found to be true, it was/is because he was/is an idiot. A cunning one yes (but in the league of Putin and his network no way!) and had no idea he was being played like a violin by Putin, or also because of his extreme narcissism and sociopathy he was aware of what he was connected to and doing but simply didn't care because all he could see was power and money for himself.

 

Remember Smiths background as an international war-crimes investigator and judge and the breadth of such experience in uncovering the dark hidden webs of crimes such folks can get up to is second-to-none in world judicial circles.

If Smith was given any of these investigative reports and does his job he will pass these on to Garland without doubt, and if he believes them credible won't allow them to be swept away by anyone. Such is the level of judicial chops and integrity this man is said to have.

 

We can be reasonably sure of one thing.

 

Smith would not bring such charges unless he had, in his and his expert teams opinions, a  water tight case.

He aint' no flash, bellicose tv lawyer looking for 5 minutes of fame he's the real deal.

Your post included a reference to Parnas. I ran into a youtube interview with him recently.

 

Former Trump Henchman Lev Parnas REVEALS SECRETS of Trump & GOP Criminal SCHEMES

Former Trump Henchman Lev Parnas REVEALS SECRETS of Trump & GOP Criminal SCHEMES | The Weekend Show - YouTube

 

[Danderman123]

23 minutes ago, CharlieKo said:

With so many charges laid against Trump it seems that maybe the prosecution aren't sure any of them will stick. The dems must be so desperate! 

Either that, or Trump committed a lot of crimes.

 

Occam's Razor will help you with resolving this question.

[Walker88]

23 minutes ago, CharlieKo said:

With so many charges laid against Trump it seems that maybe the prosecution aren't sure any of them will stick. The dems must be so desperate! 

Or the DoJ believes ALL the charges will stick and the criminal will be held to account for all of his crimes.

 

trump is clearly desperate now, as it looks increasingly likely he will do jail time, and at his age likely pass while in jail.

 

Fortunately, there are real patriots who believe in democracy and will take steps to stop anyone who tries to destroy 250 years of its presence in America.

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

True

But that's why we should always challenge what we think we know. 

Getting information from as many as possible. and varied  sources , and look or the inconsistencies, Is IMO the only way possible, at least for me it is. 

    Of course, you watch Fox and the bias is obvious but plenty of times I have seen CNN or MSNBC peoport things that I know for a fact  are not entirely true, and I know that the people reporting them are intelligent enough to know that it is not true. So it leads me to wonder. " if they are wilfully lying to me now . what else are they lying to me about that I have not noticed? 

So as I said the only way possible as far as I know is to have an open critical mind, and challenge what you know to the best of my ability.  

I don't see so much lying on CNN or MSNBC as omission of facts, or just plain stupidity.

 

FOX, however, is mostly a barrage of lies. 

[earlinclaifornia]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

I don't see so much lying on CNN or MSNBC as omission of facts, or just plain stupidity.

 

FOX, however, is mostly a barrage of lies. 

Exactly and thanks for adding what I myself believe is the truth. I spent years checking on Fox news for Republican views as there are two sides to a pancake. It was so rare to have a thought from them outside of Trump mania. Now I will only watch from other media carrying a Fox News report. 

[Walker88]

19 minutes ago, bignok said:

No substance to any of it. Remember the 2016 Russians argument. 

 

 

I can see you are not well versed on the russia investigation.

 

You need some education.

 

Mueller was prohibited by then-AG Barr from pursuing a good many of the leads. There were many aspects left out, but most later found their way into the SSCI 1000 page report on the russia investigation. Remember that when SSCI issued that report, the Senate was Repub-controlled and SSCI chaired by a Repub.

 

Among the things they found:

 

-140 contacts between trump's campaign and russians, none of which were noted when trump appointees (e.g., jared) filed their SF86 in order to get a clearance

 

-manafort traveled to Spain a day after trump appointed him as Campaign Chair. manafort took internal polling data and gave it to GRU asset konstantin kilimnik. kilimnik then forwarded the data to the GRU's "Internet Research Agency" in St Pete, who subsequently used it to microtarget voters in key swing States like WI, MI, PA and OH.

 

---roger stone was in regular contact with juilian assange of Wikileaks and had head's up on what Wikileaks was going to release and when (Podesta emails). trump even noted in one of his rallies about upcoming leaks, all of which were given to Wikileaks by a russia SVB asset.

 

While the Repub SSCI report did not conclude "collusion" (whatever that not legal term means), it did conclude that trump's campaign was aware putin was working to get trump elected, and the campaign was okay with that help. The manafort meeting with kilimnik, however, certainly screams willful intent.

[alex8912]

12 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I don't see so much lying on CNN or MSNBC as omission of facts, or just plain stupidity.

 

FOX, however, is mostly a barrage of lies. 

There's a lot of lying on CNN. Even their last couple years of covering up their own staff and higher ups crimes and convictions is newsworthy everywhere else but CNN. Quite a bunch of losers over  there pointing fingers at anyone else but themselves daily. 

Edited August 2, 2023 by alex8912

[Danderman123]

Just now, alex8912 said:

There's a lot of lying on CNN. Even their last couple years of covering up their own staff and higher ups crimes and convictions is newsworthy everywhere else but CNN. Quite a bunch of losers aver there pointing fingers at anyone else but themselves daily. 

Got some examples that were not mistakes that were later cleared up?

 

A reputable news organization rectifies its mistakes, FOX News rarely, if ever, does.

[bignok]

8 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

I can see you are not well versed on the russia investigation.

 

You need some education.

 

Mueller was prohibited by then-AG Barr from pursuing a good many of the leads. There were many aspects left out, but most later found their way into the SSCI 1000 page report on the russia investigation. Remember that when SSCI issued that report, the Senate was Repub-controlled and SSCI chaired by a Repub.

 

Among the things they found:

 

-140 contacts between trump's campaign and russians, none of which were noted when trump appointees (e.g., jared) filed their SF86 in order to get a clearance

 

-manafort traveled to Spain a day after trump appointed him as Campaign Chair. manafort took internal polling data and gave it to GRU asset konstantin kilimnik. kilimnik then forwarded the data to the GRU's "Internet Research Agency" in St Pete, who subsequently used it to microtarget voters in key swing States like WI, MI, PA and OH.

 

---roger stone was in regular contact with juilian assange of Wikileaks and had head's up on what Wikileaks was going to release and when (Podesta emails). trump even noted in one of his rallies about upcoming leaks, all of which were given to Wikileaks by a russia SVB asset.

 

While the Repub SSCI report did not conclude "collusion" (whatever that not legal term means), it did conclude that trump's campaign was aware putin was working to get trump elected, and the campaign was okay with that help. The manafort meeting with kilimnik, however, certainly screams willful intent.

Reads like waffle. FBI admitted they had zip.

[Walker88]

The convicted sex offender trump (the E Jean Carroll civil suit convicted trump of sexual assault) is going to be pretty busy trying to stay out of prison or the electric chair:

 

-the 6 January indictment (possible capital charges, which can carry a death sentence)

-the stolen documents indictment

-a new case filed by Carroll

-the Manhattan District indictment for bank and insurance fraud

-a possible indictment in Georgia for trying to interfere in the election there

 

No doubt the self-claimed 'billionaire' will be grifting off the goobers to get funds to cover his legal costs...that is if he can find and retain any lawyers.

[Jai Dee]

A post containing a meme from a questionable source has been removed.

[bignok]

10 minutes ago, alex8912 said:

There's a lot of lying on CNN. Even their last couple years of covering up their own staff and higher ups crimes and convictions is newsworthy everywhere else but CNN. Quite a bunch of losers over  there pointing fingers at anyone else but themselves daily. 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/27/donald-trump-charges-fake-news-after-cnn-producer-/

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, bignok said:

Reads like waffle. FBI admitted they had zip.

You are responding to known facts with a lie. This is a tired old trolling technique.

 

Refute the facts listed in the prior post, or stop trolling.

 

We'll wait.

[Walker88]

Just now, bignok said:

Reads like waffle. FBI admitted they had zip.

No, the FBI did not admit to that. Your are incorrect. I see you have no answer to the manafort-kilimnik business.

 

The entire case began when covert assets and foreign liaison services shared intel with the CIA. Then DCI John Brennan then did exactly what he was supposed to do: he put together a Bigot List that monitors and restricts access to the intel, he turned everything over to the FBI which has the authority to investigate US Persons. As new intel came in, Brennan handled it all the same way. even hand carrying reports to the WH to brief Pres Obama in a SCIF, then destroying the copy.

 

BTW, durham found the agency did exactly what the law requires. Oddly---or perhaps not---durham refused to pursue the intel on kilimnik, stone/Wikileaks, nor the 140 russian-trump campaign contacts reported in the SSCI document. In the end, durham got one low level FBI guy for essentially not dotting an i and crossing a t. Another repub waste of time and Taxpayer money.

[sirineou]

Just now, Danderman123 said:

I don't see so much lying on CNN or MSNBC as omission of facts, or just plain stupidity.

 

FOX, however, is mostly a barrage of lies. 

Agreed , Fox is obvious, but because of it ,they are less effectively on intelligent people 

But the best propaganda is not to be obvious as Fox obviously is, Sophisticated propaganda is  not in what it is said, but in what it is not said.  

"Omission of facts" that's where intelligent people fall for it. 

Obviously what is said must be mostly  true , otherwise we will immediately discount it. But there is always the Yes!! but..........

[Danderman123]

Just now, bignok said:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/27/donald-trump-charges-fake-news-after-cnn-producer-/

You just proved yourself wrong.

 

The CNN producer said no one was lying, CNN was focused on the Trump story because people were interested in it.

 

But FOX lies: remember their claiming that Dominion was stealing votes from Trump with their machines? They lied about that repeatedly, on air, while privately expressing doubts about the story.

 

When you don't believe your own lies, that's pretty bad.

[HappyExpat57]

8 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

why are they unindicted?

Word on the street is they WILL be indicted later on. IF they were indicted at the same time, 45 could use them to delay, delay, delay. This indictment is clean and concise. He may actually have to be fitted for an orange jumpsuit.

[Bangkok Barry]

Thinking ahead. Am I right in thinking that the US has no law or way of preventing a convicted criminal from becoming President, but it does have a law that prevented Obama from being President again?

[jerrymahoney]

55 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

So if a pollster asks a Trump supporter or 2020 Trump voter, 'Do you think that the 2020 election was stolen?' do you expect them to say "NO".

Addendum:

 

GOP insiders: Polls don’t capture secret Trump vote

 

10/28/2016 05:03 AM EDT

Those battleground state polls that paint such a grim picture of Donald Trump’s prospects against Hillary Clinton? Most Republican insiders don’t believe they’re accurately capturing Trump’s true level of support.

 

That’s according to the POLITICO Caucus — a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 key battleground states. More than seven-in-10 GOP insiders, 71 percent, say the polls understate Trump’s support because voters don’t want to admit to pollsters that they are backing the controversial Republican nominee.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-shy-voters-polls-gop-insiders-230411

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

GOP insiders: Polls don’t capture secret Trump vote

Polls don't capture ,only trump secret vote? 

[jerrymahoney]

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Polls don't capture ,only trump secret vote? 

From 2016.

[Walker88]

23 minutes ago, bignok said:

All just nonsense.

In other words, reality upsets you.

 

You have no way to refute the facts, so you resort to 'nonsense'.

[HappyExpat57]

9 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

Thinking ahead. Am I right in thinking that the US has no law or way of preventing a convicted criminal from becoming President, but it does have a law that prevented Obama from being President again?

IF Smith had charged the traitor with sedition and the charge stuck, this would have prevented the traitor from ever holding a gubmint office again. Wiser heads have said he most likely DIDN'T because the traitor could have cried alligator tears, saying Smith was performing election interference to prevent him from running. Smith holds his cards absolutely against his chest, and we'll most likely never know.

[bignok]

4 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

In other words, reality upsets you.

 

You have no way to refute the facts, so you resort to 'nonsense'.

Not facts just gibberish. Heard it for 8 years.

[bignok]

4 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

IF Smith had charged the traitor with sedition and the charge stuck, this would have prevented the traitor from ever holding a gubmint office again. Wiser heads have said he most likely DIDN'T because the traitor could have cried alligator tears, saying Smith was performing election interference to prevent him from running. Smith holds his cards absolutely against his chest, and we'll most likely never know.

The whole thing is political. They waited 3 years.